An Interview With Edward Sylvan
My hope is to help people understand that when we look at events taking place around us, it’s not just the fact of a law or policy that is of significance, but also the less obvious ways in which more subtle tools — vague language, secrecy, a disregard for norms and the misuse of government agencies — can be used to alter and defuse the rule of law. This is what my new book Subtle Tools is about.
As part of my series about “authors who are making an important social impact”, I had the pleasure of interviewing Karen Greenberg.
Karen J. Greenberg is the Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham Law, an International Studies Fellow at New America, and a permanent member of the Council on Foreign Relations. Greenberg specializes in the intersection between national security policy, the rule of law and human rights. Greenberg is the host of “Vital Interests Podcast,” and the editor-in-chief of three online publications: The CNS/Soufan Group Morning Brief (2007-present), the CNS/Aon Cyber Brief (2011-present), and Vital Interests Forum (2019-present). She has written and edited numerous books including: Subtle Tools: The Dismantling of American Democracy from The War on Terror to Donald Trump (Princeton, August 2021), Rogue Justice: The Making of the Security State (Crown, 2016), The Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days (Oxford, 2009), Reimagining the National Security State: Liberalism on the Brink (Cambridge, 2020) and The Torture Papers: the Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge, 2005). Her work has been featured in The NYTimes, The Washington Post, The LA Times, The Nation, The Atlantic, The Hill, the American Prospect and many other major news outlets. She is a frequent guest on national television and radio shows.
Thank you so much for joining us in this interview series! Before we dive into the main focus of our interview, our readers would love to “get to know you” a bit better. Can you tell us a bit about your childhood backstory?
I grew up in New London, Connecticut, home to the Coast Guard Academy, the Naval Submarine Base and General Dynamics/Electric Boat. My grandfather was mayor of my town when I was young, so I attended numerous ceremonies at the Coast Guard Academy and the Submarine Base. I was steeped in the awareness of defense institutions from a young age.
When you were younger, was there a book that you read that inspired you to take action or changed your life? Can you share a story about that?
Varian Fry’s Surrender on Demand (published in 1945) opened my eyes to the ways in which one person can make a difference. He single-handedly arranged visas for refugees from Hitler’s Germany, even beyond the limits imposed by the State Department. It inspired me to understand that even when confronted with overwhelming power, an individual can make a difference.
Can you share the funniest or most interesting mistake that occurred to you in the course of your career? What lesson or take away did you learn from that?
One day when I arrived in court for the sentencing in a very high-profile terrorism case, I went to get in line for the elevators. As I was not technically a member of the press, but an independent writer, I looked for the line that said “Public.” When I saw no such sign, I went up to one of the guards and asked, “Where is the line for the public. You know the public is supposed to be allowed in, right?” “Lady,” the guard said, “You are always the only public here. Come this way.” And they took me up in the elevator to the hearing.
The lessons from this are three-fold: First: Don’t give up when it seems like the options you are looking for don’t exist. Second: On the personal level, the world can be a friendlier place than it at first appears. And Third, importantly, the public is not as interested in terrorism cases as one might expect so journalism from the courtroom is important.
Can you describe how you aim to make a significant social impact with your book?
My hope is to help people understand that when we look at events taking place around us, it’s not just the fact of a law or policy that is of significance, but also the less obvious ways in which more subtle tools — vague language, secrecy, a disregard for norms and the misuse of government agencies — can be used to alter and defuse the rule of law. This is what my new book Subtle Tools is about. These subtle tools have affected many things — from the messy creation and lasting presence of Guantanamo Bay to the expansive use of the Department of Homeland Security in areas far afield from the foreign terrorist threat it was ostensibly created to counter, as well as to the use of post 9/11 war powers for an ever-expanding military presence around the globe.
I hope to alert people to the ways in which imprecision and lack of clarity in governance is an under-appreciated danger to democracy and needs to be addressed.
Can you share with us the most interesting story that you shared in your book?
There are many interesting stories in the book. But here is one that illustrates the way in which law followed decision-making, rather than preceded it.
After the killing in January 2020 of top Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, the Trump administration fumbled to find a legal narrative for their action. The Secretary of Defense Mark Esper, the Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the Attorney General William Barr each gave a muddled set of explanations, a combination of self-defense, deterrence, statutory authority, and constitutional authority — but agreed on no one, coherent legal or policy narrative. Barr, for example, refused to answer the questions of legal authorization with specific references, calling it only “legitimate,” this, despite the fact that the Justice Dept., we later learned, provided specific legal grounds for the strike.
Then, in an interview on NPR, Esper, discussing the implications of the strike, further confused the matter, stating that although the 2001 and 2002 authorizations for war and the Commander-in-Chief powers gave the president authority for the strike, the president was not empowered to attack Iran itself.
Soon after the taped interview, Esper’s office called NPR and asked for a retaping. This time, Esper announced that the president in fact did have the power to conduct such a strike against Iran. “Do you believe the U.S. has the legal authority to strike Iran for the actions of militias in Iraq?” NPR then asked. “Yes, we do,” Esper answered.
The takeaway was this: the administration embraced the notion that the president’s powers were whatever they needed them to be at any given moment — and when providing legal details, was unconcerned about consistency or specificity.
What was the “aha moment” or series of events that made you decide to bring your message to the greater world? Can you share a story about that?
9/11 was a transformative moment for me. I was semi-retired, writing fiction and raising children when the World Trade Center was attacked. I decided at that moment that I would re-engage in work regarding society and politics (I had worked after 1989 on civil society projects in Eastern Europe). When I watched the towers fall, I understood that the numerous little protections we put in place to keep our children safe were largely cosmetic. There were bigger dangers and they needed to be addressed — fairly and lawfully.
Without sharing specific names, can you tell us a story about a particular individual who was impacted or helped by your cause?
My role is to help policymakers and the public think about what is happening in the name of national security. My hope is that I have helped open eyes to the larger dangers of bypassing laws, decency, morality and norms.
Are there three things the community/society/politicians can do to help you address the root of the problem you are trying to solve?
Yes, leaders at the community/social/political level can honor the principle of clarity and specificity that keeps us united as a society and clear about what laws and norms we live by.
Here are three ways:
- Lawmakers need to be precise rather than vague when they write and pass legislation.
- Officials who violate standing law need to be held accountable for violating laws and norms (something that has for the most part not happened in the course of this century, witness those who designed and implemented the torture program, warrantless surveillance, or more recently, were complicit in the storming of the Capitol).
- The term national security should not be considered a blanket excuse for any deviation from laws or norms. Community leaders/society/politicians need to insist on what threat is specifically at issue.
How do you define “Leadership”? Can you explain what you mean or give an example?
For me, leadership relies upon a willingness to find common ground with those with whom you disagree about major issues, to recognize that as human beings, we share a desire to be safe and secure. We’ve seen evidence of this form of leadership recently in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s reaching out to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as well as to Liz Cheney.
What are your “5 things I wish someone told me when I first started” and why. Please share a story or example for each.
- Recognize that those whom you encounter in the early stages of your career will likely enter your life/career repeatedly over the course of time. It’s actually a wonderful thing. For example, I went to college with people who ended up reappearing in my career- including two college presidents, a COVID test innovator and a news executive.
- People can change career paths successfully. This is important because sometimes when a new avenue opens up, it’s worth taking. I worked on post-’89 Eastern Europe for years, decided to take a break, and ended up making the aftermath of 9/11 the focus of a new stage in my career.
- Witnessing events that you want to write about first-hand makes all the difference. You pick up things that transcripts, recordings, etc. don’t pick up. For example, I’ve observed numerous terrorism trials. You see things — exchanges between lawyers and clients, activity on the jury, the behavior of courtroom guards, and much more that is crucial for understanding the full significance of the proceedings. Similarly for Congressional hearings, and for getting to know places where major events have taken place. For example, in one trial I witnessed — as the jury entered the courtroom to deliver the verdict, one of the members of the jury winked at the defendant, signaling the much-less-harsh-than-expected verdict to come.
- When you notice something that seems a little awry, pay attention. It might not be a one-off. Rather it might be part of a trend worth noting. For example, I was uncomfortable with an intensive discussion of torture at a meeting of policy experts in the fall of 2003. I dismissed it as a foolish conversation. It was in fact a warning sign as to the yet to emerge a secret set of counterterrorism policies that would include torture.
- Deciding to listen to the remarks of those with whom you might disagree, while essential to my work, will earn severe criticism from those with whom you agree. But it’s still worth it. I have an abiding interest in listening to those who have held powerful positions in law enforcement and intelligence and other national security positions. This has led to head-shaking among those who decry, as I do, the aberrations in-laws and policy that some of those individuals or their agencies have embraced. Still, I maintain, it is worth stepping aside from the ideological divide, to understand where there are points of connection, and where the impetus for deviations from laws and principles derives.
Can you please give us your favorite “Life Lesson Quote”? Can you share how that was relevant to you in your life?
The perfect is the enemy of the good. It’s constantly relevant. While aiming to have things perfect, at some point, it’s important to file an article, to conclude a chapter, to submit a book. When writing for publication, I often have to remind myself, after numerous drafts, that it is my best for that moment, even if it may not be perfect. And there will be more chances in the future to try out new approaches, new ideas, new ways of presenting my analyses.
Is there a person in the world, or in the US with whom you would like to have a private breakfast or lunch with, and why? He or she might just see this, especially if we tag them. 🙂
Kamala Harris.
How can our readers further follow your work online?
@KarenGreenberg3 (https://twitter.com/KarenGreenberg3)
https://www.centeronnationalsecurity.org/subtle-tools-karen-j-greenberg-aug-24
https://www.centeronnationalsecurity.org/kjg-in-the-news
This was very meaningful, thank you so much. We wish you only continued success on your great work!
Thank you!
Social Impact Authors: How & Why Karen Greenberg of Fordham Law Is Helping To Change Our World was originally published in Authority Magazine on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.